All Advisory Opinions At-A-Glance

Any state may submit an informal written request to the Executive Director for assistance in interpreting the rules of this compact. The Executive Director may seek the assistance of legal counsel, the Executive Committee, or both, in interpreting the rules. The Executive Committee may authorize its standing committees to assist in interpreting the rules. Interpretations of the rules shall be issued in writing by the Executive Director or the Executive Committee and shall be circulated to all of the states.

Disclaimer: Advisory Opinions are written in accordance with how a Rule is currently drafted. They are not intended for speculation or to encompass all scenarios, but are a legal interpretation of a Rule(s).

Whether a person should be returned as a juvenile when being detained as a juvenile in the holding state, but has an outstanding warrant from an adult court in the home state.

Finding:

When an out-of-state juvenile is being detained as a juvenile in the holding state and has an outstanding adult warrant in the demanding state, the Compact should be applied if the person is classified as a juvenile in the home/demanding state. In such cases, the juvenile should be returned to the home/demanding/sending state as a juvenile.

Whether ICJ Rule 7-104 requires a home/demanding state to return a juvenile being held on a warrant even if the warrant has been withdrawn and whether state confidentiality laws prohibit entry of warrants issued for juveniles subject to the Compact into NCIC.

Finding:

ICJ Rule 7-104 is a mandatory obligation placed upon the home/demanding/sending state to return a juvenile being held on a warrant even if the warrant has been withdrawn. However, there may be situations in which a return is not possible.

With respect to the issue of whether confidentiality laws prohibit the issuance of warrants for juveniles subject to the ICJ into NCIC, the answer is “no”.

Return of Juvenile Serving a Sentence for New Offense in a Receiving State

Finding:

Based upon the above provisions of the ICJ rules and legal analysis, where there are pending charges, which exist in the receiving/holding state, ICJ Rule 7-103 prohibits the return of the juvenile until “after charges are resolved,” or “consent is given” by the courts.

Is a sending state required to transfer supervision of a juvenile adjudicated there for an offense but who resides with a parent in the receiving state in a case where the parent may be homeless? If so, can enforcement action be taken if the sending state refuses to implement the transfer under the ICJ?

Finding:

When there is no parent or legal guardian residing in the sending state, the sending state cannot refuse to transfer supervision based on information that the parent is homeless or at risk of homelessness.